To wonder why people have children when they clearly put their career first, by having a 24hr maternity nurse from day one and a full-time nanny from 3 months?

[gogetter]

Call me old fashioned but why bother when you are going to see your child for maybe an hour a day on weekdays?
It's not financially needed for mum to return to work (far from) so why leave your teeny weeny baby with a nanny during the most amazing time of their lifes?

A bit strange I fear!

I think judgement is sort of part of the parcel but can be covered up or not...however, teh name calling IS unecessary...

Leati. Not always, but often, one of the wonderful things about mnet is that threads can get very heated and yes, sometimes things are said that shouldn't be...

BUT. Most, and I accept, not all, people manage to then leave that stuff in those threads, move onto another, and not bear grudges.

Maybe we're tough old birds?

That is the good thing I have noticed, everyone seems to be able to leave it there.

Before Nuclear Families (i.e. before the 1950's, when we all lived in extended families) babies were cared for by the extended family, not just soley by their Mother's The whole concept of a lone woman staying at home all day is an unnatural one in most communities. Kids (IMHO) should be used to different carers - its makes them confident socially and does them no harm whatsoever.

There are high rates of depression amongst SAHM's [ducks] - what is good about a woman struggling at home alone with her Dc's? [Devil's advocate emoticon]

Woman have always worked : poor women had to. And rich women have always had nannies/wet nurses etc. And many families sned their childrn to boarding schools.

Why does it bother you and why are you being judgemental about another woman's lifestyle?

Quantity does not equal quality parenting. For all you know this woman may be the most fantastic Mum and also happen to have a fab job which she enjoys. Why begrudge her?

agree foxclub and leati, totally. (although i also managed to disagree with leati on the alcohol thread- see, it can work!)
There was a recent study which showed that children now get far more 'quality time' with their parents than ever before, which seems to add to your point, foxclub.
There are many different reasons why people decide to keep working. Only one of these is financial. I have worked bloody hard in my career for 17 years since graduating and now run my own business. It is extremely rewarding (i get rid of people's pain for a living) and it affords me a large amount of financial and non-financial independence. I can afford not to work, (dh good job- pays far more than mine) but choose not to give it up- i love it! But since i am the boss, i can dictate my own hours. (I may also change my mind after LO arrives, but i also reserve that right)

Other mothers may also find their career rewarding and many jobs are not compatible with part time work. Some women are unfortunate enough not to have had the wonderful mother i had and have no role-model to emulate. Other women cannot identify with tiny babies and young children, but get on fabulously well with their children in later life. They would rather a trained person who knows what they are doing, looked after their DC than struggle and fail themselves.

There are many different reasons why women choose to work, and not. I would be extremely surprised if any of these reasons are the flash cars and holidays mentioned in OPs. I do not judge SAHMs, don't judge me.

Remember the thread tstart with why bother having children if you're going to work (as a woman). Workingm others didn't startt it. We just pointed out the other side. We could as easily have said why bother doing GCSEs, A levels, a degree and building a career and then stop it as in most cases that does mean stop it being anthing much. I know a few women can take 7 year out and then return tto continue as leading surgeons or to run BP etc but in many cases the time out shoots the career to pieces and often they choose to stay part time until the children leave home anyway.

Anyway most women with small children work and most of us know it's fine and indeed often better for our families. As the good post said below women always have and always will work. In the 1920s any middle class family whether them other worked or not had a servant who minded the chilren in the day. Even my grandmother in the 1920s went out to India to look after the children of an English family there. Children benefit hugely from having a number of loved adults who care for them and it gives them variety. Also often mothers get things wrong and don't know best, me as much as anyone else so it's great there are others with other influences the child can go to get a balanced view. Too much scope for abuse with one adult at home with one child for all those hours and too stressful for many. Look at the numbers of housewives on prozac and in the 1950s whatever the psychiatric drug of choice was then. It's not a model that works well - isolated mother at home with a child. Horrendous choice.

Yes, agreed. The modern mother manages a career aswell as a family. And some mothers arent cut out for motherhood on a fulltime basis. But, if you have a child it seems natural for the mother to want to be with that child and not to want to return to work asap.

I'm on maternity leave with my third baby and can't wait to return to work LOL!!

Took them all to a work party last night (which was for families - my Co is very family friendly) and it was so good to be able to talk politics, policies, strategies etc with work colleagues as well as having my lovely children around me who were having a fab time on the bouncy castle etc

I love my job, earn loads more than my husband and absolutely love motherhood as well. I think I am very lucky indeed to have a balanced life. As the higher earner, it will be me who works and DH who stays at home when I return, although we may split it and decide to both work p/t instead.

Figures released a couple of days ago by the Equl Opps Commission showed that mothers of young children suffer the most disctimination in the workplace in terms of unequal pay. It is nigh impossible to take a real career break and return to work at the same level - stats show that women are not able to do this. If we were treated equal we would be able to spend more time at home, without risking our carrer in the longer term.

..mind you - to look at my typos on MN you wouldn't think I could hold down any job!!

Fewer than mine. Also the original thread said "call me old fashioned",. That alone is inaccurate. As I said below there were literally a million domestic servants in the UK until about 1914 and many many mothers who did not work (most did of course) had a nanny or day nurse in the day for their children. Go to say to East Africa and our Indian ex nanny's family (where she was from) all had loads of African servants there helping with children etc etc

This sexist myth is perpetutated that we used to have a domestic gold age where women concentrated on kinder, kuche and kirche. It is a dangerous fantasy we need to stamp out.

I totally agree Xenia and think that myth is very damaging. It creates an iconic myth of a "perfect housewife" who stayed in the kitchen, and never actually existed until 1950s anyway. The idea of one woman as the sole carer being a "natural state" for her children is a modern myth - no doubt created post war to get women out of factories (where they had taken jobs) and back into the home, so there wouldn't be mass unemployment amongst the men returning from WW2.

If SAHMness is such a natural state why do so many SAHMs rely on anti depressants? Probably due to the isolation bought about by living in nuclear, rather than extended, families and trying to live up to an unrealistic ideal.

foxcub - do they REALLY rely on anti depressants, i am a SAHM, i've had a shit couple of years, notthing to do with being a SAHM (ive loved that although i have to go back to work soon ) but i am not about to trot off to the doc demanding prozac. I am sure that there are plenty of mothers and fathers out there in the work place that are struggling with mental illnesses and the stresses and strains of life. They probably just dont talk about it.

Why can't you people just accept that what works for one family may not work for another. It is every womans right to CHOSE what she feels is best for her family and ultimately herself. Just because someone choses to be at home with their family doesnt mean they are going to feel isolated and depressed. Sure it can be tough with just a two year old for company, it can be tough in the work place to for similar reasons. I used to work in research and would spend hours, often days, working completely alone. Yes there was the tea bar and we made the most of that, but its the same being a SAHM, it is nice to play with your children, have the freedom to take them to the beach park if you so wish.

I just don't understand why people feel that in order to justify their own choices they need to discredit the other options, simply because it wasnt possible or desirable for their family.

This was a thread berating working mothers. It's not surprising we set out why those who think staying home is right set the record straight. That's all.

Metnal illness is worse in stay at home mothers than those in the workplace, although obviously not all stay at home parents are on prozac.

I never understand these points about rights and choice. If it damages the progression of women and your daughters in the workplace that women leave or request flexible working and men don't then surely you have moral duty to work to aid your daughters and other women? Of course you have a legal right in the UK even a legal right to choose not to work and have 12 children as a single mother so in that sense the right is there I suppose.

The issue then is this, if a mother CHOSES to take time out of her career to take care of her children, why should she then expect to take ten steps back in her career when she returns. I agree that in certain fields, mine being a prime exaple (science) things move on and if you are not up to speed then you have to bring yourself up to speed and this can be difficult, it is however not impossible. However, it is not the responsibility of the SAHM that this situation exists, it is society as a whole, men and WOMEN who think that because they chose not to stay at home and look after their families (a valid choice) that they have more right to career progression. So instead of berating SAHMs, maybe an idea would be to put all of this energy into campaigning for a situation where PARENTS can chose to step away from their careers without being penalised for doing so. So by being a SAHM, for the time being, i do not think i am damaging my career prospects. IT is a bit daft to equate someones choice to be a single mother with 12 children (does anyone chose to do this?) and not work with a woman who takes time out to care for her young family for a few years.

So by being a SAHM, for the time being, i do not think i am damaging my career prospects.

I meant to say, my Daughters career prospects

i've been looked down apon for not working yet there are clear reasons why i cant work at moment and quite frankly dont want to untill my ds is at playschool fulltime having my ds is my full time job i hate explaining all the time why i cant work dp works away or very long hrs cant afford childcare and family unable to help out and i want to be there for my son i have a friend who has to work is fortunate enough to have both side of parents to help and she also is looked down apon i also dislike the fact as i'm stay at home mum i get the whole well you must be doing ok on benifits always persume i'm seeking benefits i always say my partner works very very hard to support us i have never seeked benefits and it annoys me too many people are judgemental let us be and do what we want without judgement from others especially if you dont know the individuals personal situations we all have our own reasons to do what we feel best for our own family

I think the age of the child is a bit of an issue. I think staying at home when you have a baby and toddler, who I think really need a parent around if at all possible (which I did) is a bit different to when you have a school age child and can fit work into school times - though we should all be getting more help with flexible working so this is feasible. I went back to work when my youngest was 2 and a half and are lucky to fit my work into school/pre school times.

Think this will really fit in here...

1950's good Housewife magazin....the good wife's guide

I love all that 1950's crap. But come on, just cos a mum chooses to stay at home she shouldn't be pigeonholed as some kind of Stepford wife who wants nothing more than to bake perfect cakes and fold nappies! That's as bad as berating women who chose to work! I've been on the receiving end of both and have had people thinking I'm thick/lazy/a sponger for choosing to be with my kids.

Mary Rose...I only posted that link because some people were remenissing (sp?) about the 1950's...
I am certainly a complete failure going by what they expected a good wife, to do...anyway....lol....

Sorry 3andnomore, misunderstood you! Though I quite fancy having the time to "apply a little make up and tie a fresh bow in my hair" before dh comes home! (as if he'd bloody notice after a 10 hour shift!)

By Xenia on Sat 28-Jul-07 16:45:29
If it damages the progression of women and your daughters in the workplace that women leave or request flexible working and men don't then surely you have moral duty to work to aid your daughters and other women?

well at least i can now breathe a sigh of relief as my dd will never work. so my being a sahm will not affect her.

(god you do talk crap how ever many long words you use)

women should stay at home and look after the children.